Israel, Political Assassinations and The Rule of Law: The Case of Mabhouh

By Seyed Safavi and Hanan Nasser

International Peace Studies Centre (peace-ipsc.org)

The assassination last month of a senior Hamas leader in Dubai, widely blamed on Israel, has culminated into a diplomatic row between Israel and several European countries, including Britain, and has placed the Israeli Mossad in the eye of the storm both internationally and domestically. At the heart of the issue are revelations by the Dubai police this week that Mossad agents forged European passports to carry out the assassination of Mahmoud al-Mabhouh. Israel has neither denied nor confirmed its involvement.

Obligations under International Law

The assassination has also triggered debates in Israel and internationally over the right to carry out extrajudicial executions, state and individual security and the violation of state sovereignty.

The Israeli argument would be that the killing of Mabhouh was not an act of terrorism but that of war and even “self defense” since Israel views the Hamas leader as an “enemy”. However, such an argument raises a dangerous notion that seems to legitimize acts of assassination in the name of warfare and that undermines the rule of law, state sovereignty and the right to fair trial and due process. It ultimately states that any state, person or organization can carry out an assassination, anywhere around the world, if the target is viewed as an “enemy combatant”, “terrorist”, “security hazard” or any other description that is employed at legitimizing such an act.

As a signatory to the International Covenant for Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), which guarantees the rights of all individuals to life and to fair trial (articles 6 and 14), Israel has an obligation to uphold its commitments.

At a time when political assassinations are no longer widespread or popular, Israel seems to cling to the idea that it is above the law and that it had the right to cross borders and borderlines to ‘get the job done’.

Holding the government of Israel accountable will most likely not actualize internationally due to the impunity granted to Israel by the US and some western countries, particularly considering the sensitive political climate in the region, further due to the mere fact that the accused is Israel itself it will not occur domestically in Israel either. This is reflected by the wording of the European Union statement which merely condemned identity theft, stopping short of condemning Israel by name.

Once again impunity throws into question the purpose of international law and international justice and highlights its selectivity of who is held accountable and what for. It also poses a hypothetical situation whereby if the accused were Hamas, Hezbollah, Iran or Syria, what would the international reaction to those acts then be?

What was the purpose of Mabhouh’s murder?

The assassination of Mabhouh has no significant value from a strategic and security aspect for Israel; for not only did it not hinder Hamas’s ability in any way – as not only will Mabhouh be replaced by Hamas – but also as stated by Hamas they will move to avenge his assassination. The assassination of Mabhouh must be seen in the context of Israel’s unfortunate and dangerous campaign of threats against Syria, Gaza, Lebanon and Iran, which led to them stating that they will retaliate against any Israeli aggression. Mabhouh’s killing in Dubai, serves only as a propaganda tool aimed and instilling fear in the region and portraying the ability of Israel to strike anyone, anywhere knowing that it will face no repercussions from the US and her allies and that no UN resolution will be passed against it and any such attempt will be vetoed by the US.

Contrary to what seems to be Israel’s view, based on their past history, that such acts bring extra security for Israel, they are greatly damaging to its security and further alienate it in world and particularly Muslim public opinion. They also give weight to the view that Israel is the cause of de-stability in the region, because of its constant engagements in acts of violence against individuals, innocent civilian populations and sovereign countries, without any consideration for international law and human life or fear of accountability.

Rigi and Mabhouh: a different approach

In contrast to Israel’s assassination of Mabhouh, who was considered by Israel as a “terrorist” and a danger to Israel’s security, we can look at Iran’s approach to Abd al-Malek Rigi the head of the Jundullah militia who according to Iran has ties with the US. The Jundullah based in Iran’s southeastern province of Sistan-Baluchestan, has been responsible for a campaign of terror and has claimed responsibility for numerous terrorist attacks in Baluchestan. The latest act of terror carried out by Jundullah, which is considered as a terrorist organization by Iran, occurred on the 18th of October 2008 in which more than 40 Iranians including 15 members of the IRGC and tribal leaders were killed.  The group has also carried out acts of sabotage, mass murder and bombing. The Jundullah has targeted civilians and government officials, as well as Iran’s military.

In dealing with Rigi, Iran did not act like Israel did in relation to Mabhouh and did not assassinate the rebel leader or his brother who was captured last year. Rather they captured Rigi in a legally valid security operation and as announced by the Iranian Judiciary on Tuesday the 23rd of February, Rigi will be tried in the court of law.

Iran by using soft methods was able to reach its goal of capturing the leader of one of the most dangerous terrorist organization in the country, without violating the sovereignty of other countries, breaking international law, theft of identity or resorting to the heinous crime of political assassination, which Israel has a history of engaging in.

Double standards and accountability?

It is important to ask, if such an act was carried out by other than Israel, let us say by a Muslim country or a Muslim movement against Israel, would governments across the world, particularly the US and her allies not label such an act as a terrorist act? Would they not call it a violation of international law? Would it not be seen as an act of violence, and as de-stabilizing to the “peace”  in the Middle East? Would those responsible not be held accountable and prosecuted?

Then why is the same not done against Israel? And what message does this send to the Muslim world? If the international community, if the US and her allies want peace in the region and want to engage with the Muslim world, how can they continually turn a blind eye to Israel’s continued acts of violence? Should not international law be universal and applicable to everyone? Where is the UN investigation in this murder? Where is the UN investigation in the murder of Ahmad Yassin and the more than 50 other assassinations conducted by Israel?

Where are Security Council resolutions and sanctions against Israel for its continued occupation of Palestine territories, breaking international law, violating UN resolutions and the violation of the very basic human rights of the Palestinian people in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank? Why has Israel not been prosecuted for its crimes against the Palestinians (as documented by the Goldstone report)? The list of questions goes on and on. These are questions that are present in the mind of the people of the Middle East. They see this, the impunity of Israel, and the continued aggression against them as a sign of the unwillingness of the UN, ruled by the five permanent members of the Security Council, to give them their due right, and to act on the basis of justice and the law. Any government or movement be it Israel or Hamas that acts with aggression against another country and violates international law must be held accountable and prosecuted through legal channels.

Is the right to fair trial and due process not applicable to everyone? Including suspected “terrorists”? Once proven guilty, shouldn’t a court of law – be that a UAE court, an Israeli court or an international court – determine the punishment? When drafted, did international conventions select which human beings should be prosecuted and which human beings are to be killed on the spot? Has Dubai become a battlefield as well? If so, then does this mean any country is a battlefield in which warfare methods are legitimate?

The selective enforcement of international law, which is championed by the US and her allies by their policy of double standards, is unjust and brings international law under question. It also gives rise to the belief that international law and international organizations are tools which are used by the West in order to punish any country or movement which does not follow them or whose interests clash with those of the West, rather than being binding and enforceable equally for all countries

The continuing policy of double standards adopted by the West is the primary root cause of what is termed as Islamic extremism, among other names, in the West. The solution is simple, the rule of law and justice, nothing more; the Muslim world does not require sympathy or favors, it requires justice and fair treatment.

Related posts:

1. Israel and the Changing Balance of Power in the Middle East: Is War The Next Inevitable Step?
2. Dialogue and Difference Based on Islamic Political Philosophy
3. The US and Muslim Nations: Failure to Engage – A Review of the Brookings Institution’s Poll on Arab Public Opinion (Part I)
4. The Changing Nature of US-Israel Ties